Sports reporter and live blogger for The Telegraph. Also assails bad TV pundits on a weekly basis.

Stuart Law thinks all Test series should be three Tests long. What do you think?

Sri Lanka have been a Test nation for almost three decades now, but have yet to play a Test series of more than three Tests. At Chelmsford yesterday I asked their coach Stuart Law whether it was something he was happy with. His answer (which, you will note, was not entirely relevant, but arresting nonetheless):

"I see a two-match series is pointless. If each team wins one, it’s a drawn series. It’s a load of nonsense. It’s always got to be an odd number.

"I’d like to see all Test series down to three Tests. Obviously the Ashes is something special – the Ashes should stay at five – but maybe we could drop the one-dayers down to three matches instead of five, just to shorten the load on the players as well, to stop them playing as much cricket as they do. Players have been crying out for a long time that that’s what they need."

Well, there's an idea. Law's plan works both ways – it excises those "nonsense" two-match series, but also shears the four-Test series that have begun to spring up over the last decade or so.

Taking the next eight months or so as a guide (which takes us to the end of the 2006-2012 Future Tours Programme), the practical effect of Law's suggestion would be minimal, at least on his own team. Sri Lanka play little but three-Test series these days.

England and India would play less Test cricket, while the smaller nations such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh would play significantly more.

So what does everyone think of Law's idea? Are three-Test series the way forward? And is The Ashes really the only series that deserves five Tests?

Statistical post-script: Five-Test series are practically dead already in most parts of the world. The last one not to feature England was West Indies v India in 2002.